'Doc'.....hopefully you are better versed in medicine.
The patent APPLICATION in question is not for seedless apples,oranges nor watermelons....your description of the patent application process is lacking and flawed.
search reports do NOT REJECT Patent applications.
patent applications are sent back for non conformity reasons.
search reports serve as a guide to the applicant as to PATENTABILITY however the applicant is free to proceed as he or she wishes.
A patent application is rejected much further into the process.
The patent application in question has NOT been rejected....it was sent back for corrections BEFORE the International search report was performed. The corrections centered around inconsistent language used by the applicant regarding the TITLE/description of the PATENT APPLICATION.
The International search report in this case was a rather focused and "easily" searched per the ACTUAL REPORT. The REPORT has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the STATUS of the Patent application.The Application remains PUBLISHED and ACTIVE. These REPORTS offer educated opinions as to the CLAIMS made in the application and are useful to applicants in regards to assessing whether or not the invention is PATENTABLE. The applicant can then amend the application via a PROTEST OR move to the National phase, ignoring the report(If negative)and continue the process...or the applicant can simply do NOTHING while the time runs out on the application.
The "Observations" cited in the report were as follows-Regarding the APPLICATION:
"As all searchable CLAIMS could be searched WITHOUT EFFORT....this Authority did NOT invite payment of additional fees."
The only features common to ALL of the claims are providing a FEEDSTOCK STREAM comprising suitable feedstock material under pressure to a MIXING vessel at a predetermined feed rate and injecting a stream of reactant gas capable of dissolving into the feedstock for mixing."
The report went on to say: "HOWEVER THESE COMMON FEATURES ARE NOT NOVEL in light of; D1 US 2003/0221361 (Russell ET AL.) 4 dec. 2003: D2 US 6504068 B1 (matsubara ET AL.) 7 jan. 2003
D3 US 4396786 A (Bond ET AL) 2 august 1983."
THE KEY WORDS- NOT NOVEL.......look up lacking novelty and patent application reports and report back to this board 'Doc'. lol
NOT Novel...as in : "Makes no contribution over the prior art."
NOT NOVEL...as in : "Threfore, the CLAIMS do not satisfy the requirement of UNITY of invention a posteriori."
'Doc'...you do know what a posteriori is...correct? LOL
I suggest you read the patents cited in the search report...you'll find that apples were compared to apples. LOL
Your quote: "Your patent attorney then has to go back,and, one by one, explain why the quoted patent does not apply."
Who in the first place cited the previous patents as prior art? LOL
was it the APPLICANT? :) LOL
why do you figure the applicant has yet to file additional documents? LOL
why do you figure the applicant has not moved the application to the national phase? LOL
TIA better hope Malcolm hits oil....eh?
